Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Observing student engagement during augmented reality learning in early primary school

  • Published:
Journal of Computers in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an exploration of observational frameworks for student engagement during use of augmented reality (AR) in early primary school education. Existing observational frameworks used for evaluating engagement are explored in terms of their alignment with AR learning affordances, focusing on both practical and conceptual issues with student engagement observation. They are found lacking the necessary flexibility to cover atypical-for-the-normal-classroom-experience actions performed by students in one student per tablet augmented reality learning experiences (ARLEs). In such environment students are individually guided by their tablet to explore the real-world classroom environment around them in order to progress in their learning experience, augmented by digital data and digital interactions on the tablet, which poses a challenge both in correct classification of student actions using traditional action catalogues as well as being more difficult to systematically observe. An AR-specific student engagement observational methodology, named the Augmented Reality Lessons Engagement Observation framework or ARLEO, adapted to this environment and grounded in existing framework approaches, is proposed based on constant comparative period coding of video-records of lessons utilizing ARLEs on tablet computers. Finally, examples of application are given based on recorded actions of first and second grade primary school students during ARLE use. This shows ARLEO to be a practical approach to determining engagement of each student in the class, while respecting AR affordances, allowing for comparative research into engagement during ARLE use through multiple engagement categories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions (the main data which are used as basis for the testing and initial application of the presented methodology are video-recordings of students’ actions during observed lessons, which disclose students’ likenesses and are therefore not publishable).

References

  • Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. S., Ocumpaugh, J. L., & Andres, J. (2020). BROMP quantitative field observations: A review. In Learning science: Theory, research, and practice. McGraw-Hill.

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botički, I., Holenko Dlab, M., & Hoić-Božić, N. (2017). Synchronous collaborative mathematics learning in early primary school grades: Challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy International Conference, 2017, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchner, J., & Jeghiazaryan, A. (2020). Work-in-Progress–the ARI 2 VE model for augmented reality books. 2020 6th international conference of the immersive learning research network (ILRN), pp. 287–290. https://doi.org/10.23919/iLRN47897.2020.9155110

  • Čarapina, M., Mekterović, I., Jagušt, T., Drljević, N., Baksa, J., Kovačević, P., & Botički, I. (2015). Developing a multiplatform solution for mobile learning. Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computers in education (ICCE 2015), 384–390.

  • Çetin, H., & Türkan, A. (2022). The effect of augmented reality based applications on achievement and attitude towards science course in distance education process. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 1397–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10625-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-P., & Wang, C.-H. (2015). The effects of learning style on mobile augmented-reality-facilitated english vocabulary learning. 2015 2nd international conference on information science and security (ICISS), pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISSEC.2015.7371036

  • Chen, P., Liu, X., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2017). A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. In E. Popescu, Kinshuk, M. Koutheair Khribi, R. Huang, M. Jemni, N.-S. Chen, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Innovations in smart learning (pp. 13–18). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S. K. (2017). Emotional learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics & educational data mining (1st ed., pp. 115–127). Society for Learning Analytics Research.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drljević, N. (2022). Model of support system for learning with augmented reality in early primary school education (Doctoral thesis). University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing.

  • Drljević, N., Domančić, M., Botički, I., & Kajkara, M. (2016). Designing extensible and flexible augmented mobile learning digital lessons. Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS), 1193–1194.

  • Drljević, N., Botički, I., & Wong, L. (2022). Investigating the different facets of student engagement during augmented reality use in primary school. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drljevic, N., Wong, L. H., & Boticki, I. (2017). Where does my augmented reality learning experience (ARLE) belong? A student and teacher perspective to positioning ARLEs. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2690426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. In Issues & Answers: Vol. REL 2011 (Issue 98). Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED).

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., & Joksimović, S. (2017). Piecing the learning analytics puzzle: A consolidated model of a field of research and practice. Learning: Research and Practice, 3(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H.-J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & Education, 125, 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00390.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In H. Das (Ed.), Proceedings, telemanipulator and telepresence technologies (Vol. 2351, pp. 282–292). NY: International Society for Optics and Photonics.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mystakidis, S., Christopoulos, A., & Pellas, N. (2022). A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 1883–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10682-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, P., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2009). Lessons learned about designing augmented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgcms.2009010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, T., Hicks, D., Johnson, A., & Tucker, T. (2018). Authentic problem-based learning with augmented reality. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Proceedings of international conference of the learning sciences, ICLS (Vol. 1, pp. 136–143). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Z., López, M. F., Li, C., & Liu, M. (2021). Introducing augmented reality in early childhood literacy learning. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., & Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0347-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radu, I., & Schneider, B. (2019). What can we learn from augmented reality (AR)? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, A. D., & Christesen, E. (2010). Development and use of a tool for evaluating teacher effectiveness in grades K-12. In V. J. Shute & B. J. Becker (Eds.), Innovative assessment for the 21st century (pp. 207–228). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, D., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education. Computers & Education, 144, 103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltan, F., & Arslan, Ö. (2016). The use of augmented reality in formal education: A scoping review. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00628a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, M. E. C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H. (2014). Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, K., Ferguson, R., & Clough, G. (2014). Augmented Education. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sirakaya, M., & Cakmak, E. K. (2018). The effect of augmented reality use on achievement, misconception and course engagement. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(3), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.444119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerauer, P., & Müller, O. (2018). Augmented reality for teaching and learning—A literature Review on Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Information Systems: Beyond Digitization—Facets of Socio-Technical Change, ECIS 2018, p. 31.

  • Specht, M., Ternier, S., & Greller, W. (2011). Mobile augmented reality for learning: A case study. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 7(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, J. (2005). Instructional practices inventory: A process for profiling student engaged learning for school improvement. Middle Level Leadership Center Presentations (MU).

  • Vate-U-Lan, P. (2013). The seed shooting game: An augmented reality 3D pop-up book. Second International Conference on E-Learning and E-Technologies in Education (ICEEE), 2013, 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICeLeTE.2013.6644368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, M. (2018). (Dis)engagement matters. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, R. M. (2016). Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Manuela Kajkara and Tomislav Jagušt for their contributions in the development of the SCOLLAm platform and Manuela Kajkara for an initial analysis of the presented 2016 example data. As well, the authors would like to thank the staff of the participating primary school for their partnership in the realization of the study presented in this paper. The positions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not represent any official position of the European Parliament.

Funding

This research is funded by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project UIP-2013-11-7908 (SCOLLAm). The corresponding author’s studies were supported by the Long-term studies leading to a diploma programme of the European Parliament.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Directorate-General for Innovation and Technological Support, European Parliament, L-2929, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Neven Drljević

  2. Department of Applied Computing, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Ivica Botički

  3. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Lung Hsiang Wong

Authors
  1. Neven Drljević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivica Botički
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lung Hsiang Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ND wrote the initial draft of the paper as well as completed revision of its final form and was the main researcher tasked with researching the domain, assembling the methodology presented as well as conducting the data analysis and is therefore the corresponding author. IB oversaw the work of the corresponding author as his PhD supervisor and collaborated in the development of the presented methodology, provided recommendations regarding analytical analysis of the results of the application of the methodology as well as provided collaborative review and revision of the work during the drafting stage. LHW provided insight into possible theoretical bases for the methodology during its conception and development, including suggesting the use of the ML-ICT and the constant comparative method, based on the problem statements of issues encountered during development of the methodology by the first two authors. He as well provided collaborative review and revision of the work during the drafting stage.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neven Drljević.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not believe to have any competing interest with regards to the research presented in this article.

Ethical approval

The SCOLLAm project was examined for ethical policies compliance by the Ethics Committee of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing and given approval for the proposed experiments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drljević, N., Botički, I. & Wong, L.H. Observing student engagement during augmented reality learning in early primary school. J. Comput. Educ. 11, 181–213 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00253-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00253-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation